Sorry Locu, I wasn't ignoring you, I just didn't know how to make this any clearer.

"uke" is a role given to one of the partners in training and means that that person will defend against his partner's attack.

By my phrase, "the uke doesn't know he is the uke until he's thrown", I meant that both partners are equally attackers until one manages to get an attack in. Only at that point he becomes the tori, and his partner the uke. However at this point the uke is already flying.

Let me restate my position that way you can attack me correctly. Right now you are arguing with Knuckle and the residual is hitting me.

We agree that training is important. We agree that philoshpy is important.

We disagree with Philosphy+Training=Aikido MA.

I don't agree with the 10 year statement which unless I'm wrong you don't either.

I don't agree with the too deadly to train which I think you seem to agree with me.

I'm saying that philosphy doesn't have to be part of MA to make it a MA. I think this is where we disagree.

I wasn't trying to pick apart, because I do agree with you. But I was trying to clarify where some of those statments originate from and how sometimes they are misconstrued to mean something they don't.

And I agree that philosophy doesn't have to be a part of an MA to make it MA. But , Aikido was built on a certain philosophy and I see nothing wrong with someone who supports that philosophy as part of their practice, as long as they realize that it isn't necessary for everyone who practices the art to share that philosophy.

"Quiet fool before I am kicking the butt!"
-My three year old trash talking to me

"Integrity can't be bought or sold---you either have it or you don't."
-The Honky Tonk Man

"If you can't be a shining example, at least be a dire warning."
-My Father to me one day

Oh, and whining that you are being trolled will get you no sympathy here, go do that on E-Budo.

You're right on that count.

Originally Posted by Peter H.

blah... blah.... blah....

The rest of your post doesn't really make sense to me.

You quoted

Originally Posted by KnucleMeister

Get this people, you are only practicing with resistance if there is no predetermined attacker and defender, no predetermined attack or defense technique, and both opponents equally want to defeat their opponent.

and you're calling bullshido on that? What's wrong with that picture?

And

Originally Posted by Peter H

Originally Posted by KnucleMeister

In judo, the "uke" doesn't know he is an uke until after he's flung across the room.

Locu asked you to clarify, because to everyone who has actually stepped onto a mat would call BS on this regardless

Can I really make this any clearer? I can't see how you can call BS on that statement?

Frankly, quit sounding like a rabid retard, get a hold of yourself and make some fucking sense.

Dude, you are stating that you are only practicing with resistance if you do it in the manner you described. That is BS. I don't know how more clearly I can say it. There are many other ways to practice with resistance. The fact that you need to practice with resistance prior to getting to that point so that you can do that pretty much kills your statement.

You then make a blanket statement that in Judo there are not situations with designated Uke's and Nage's. If that is true how do you practice waza? How do you learn the mechanics of a technique. How do you learn to overcome resistance?

"Quiet fool before I am kicking the butt!"
-My three year old trash talking to me

"Integrity can't be bought or sold---you either have it or you don't."
-The Honky Tonk Man

"If you can't be a shining example, at least be a dire warning."
-My Father to me one day

Let me restate my position that way you can attack me correctly. Right now you are arguing with Knuckle and the residual is hitting me.

We agree that training is important. We agree that philoshpy is important.

We disagree with Philosphy+Training=Aikido MA.

I don't agree with the 10 year statement which unless I'm wrong you don't either.

I don't agree with the too deadly to train which I think you seem to agree with me.

I'm saying that philosphy doesn't have to be part of MA to make it a MA. I think this is where we disagree.

DCS, Pete great posts, keep it going!!!

It is fake: I think you miss the point of aikido. It is not easy to understand many of the reasons that aikido does this or that, and aikido is somewhat more dependant on philosophy than most martial arts. That is just the way it is for aikido. Unfortunately this aspect of the art can lead to fantasy and abuse of the philosophy, and there are therefore many idiots in aikido who wouldn't know a real fight if they saw it. But that is true for all martial arts. It is also true that not all aikidoka give a **** at all about fighting or effectiveness, again that is just the way it is for aikido.

It is also true that there are some very formidable aikidoka out there. Believe me, I have to train with both extremes all the time, generally on the same night. Many times I want to light my hair on fire, and run around screaming in frustration and disbelief. But for some reason, even with the crazyness, I just love the art and keep going back for more. Maybe this makes me the worst kind of bullshidoka, but that is my own problem.

Dude, you are stating that you are only practicing with resistance if you do it in the manner you described. That is BS. I don't know how more clearly I can say it. There are many other ways to practice with resistance. The fact that you need to practice with resistance prior to getting to that point so that you can do that pretty much kills your statement.

In the aikido world, perhaps. I have not seen any other art that makes that distinction. It's drill technique and sparring. The whole "resistance" argument in Aikido validates my point, because it proves there is a high risk level when resisting.

Originally Posted by Peter H.

You then make a blanket statement that in Judo there are not situations with designated Uke's and Nage's. If that is true how do you practice waza? How do you learn the mechanics of a technique. How do you learn to overcome resistance?

C'mon, I never made that statement. I said that there are such situations, but clearly didn't exclude technique drills. In fact, I made that clear in a previous post.

Fair enough, except in boxing (and thai boxing) you don't punch and kick people THAT much, if that's what you mean. That's just senseless violence. A few bruises, at most a broken rib is all you get.

I was exaggerating a bit, of course.

Originally Posted by KnuckleMeister

However say in Judo you can throw someone without them having to jump (eg a kote gaeshi throw).

So in comparison with other arts, striking and grappling, I'd classify Aikido as a lot more dangerous.

Why everybody thinks Aikido = Kote Gaeshi?

There are a lot of throwing techniques not more dangerous than judo ones (ex.: think in Judo's Kata Guruma and typical Aikido's Koshi Nage, they are very simmilar; or Uki Otoshi and basic Kokyu Nage), and btw, there's not a technique issue in itself, you can try any technique you can if it's done according with aikido principles: basically don't muscle the technique and go with the flow.

Originally Posted by KnuckleMeister

OK, I haven't heard this point before. Everyone I've spoken to up to now has given me the "too dangerous" line which agrees with my own experience (jump or your wrist gets it). This and the frankly, silly atemi. But that could have been just my school, I won't generalise here.

I've got not time to ellaborate my pov about the competition thing coherently in English at this moment.

About the "jump or your wrist gets it", well, it's like tapping to an armbar or a choke when further resistence goes nowhere, however there is a tendency to take ukemi "for free" or for a lot of reasons too long to tell at this moment (read if you want David Valadez thread at Aikiweb about "Rank Aikido" iirc)

C'mon, I never made that statement. I said that there are such situations, but clearly didn't exclude technique drills. In fact, I made that clear in a previous post.

In judo, the "uke" doesn't know he is an uke until after he's flung across the room.

By my phrase, "the uke doesn't know he is the uke until he's thrown", I meant that both partners are equally attackers until one manages to get an attack in. Only at that point he becomes the tori, and his partner the uke. However at this point the uke is already flying.

Are you practicing Judo that only utilizes Randori?

"Quiet fool before I am kicking the butt!"
-My three year old trash talking to me

"Integrity can't be bought or sold---you either have it or you don't."
-The Honky Tonk Man

"If you can't be a shining example, at least be a dire warning."
-My Father to me one day

No, just an example off the top of my head. A shiho nage throw is another (where the tori's elbow does _not_ point to the ceiling, but is sideways, if you know what I mean). Gokkyo and Rokkyo, etc.

Originally Posted by DCS

I've got not time to ellaborate my pov about the competition thing coherently in English at this moment.

Point was clearly stated and taken.

Originally Posted by DCS

About the "jump or your wrist gets it", well, it's like tapping to an armbar or a choke when further resistence goes nowhere, however there is a tendency to take ukemi "for free" or for a lot of reasons too long to tell at this moment (read if you want David Valadez thread at Aikiweb about "Rank Aikido" iirc)

In a way. Where my problem is with this, and feel free to disagree, is that an armbar or a choke can be applied carefully all the way. In Aikido, it only takes a split second to have your arm ripped out.

It is fake:Unfortunately this aspect of the art can lead to fantasy and abuse of the philosophy, and there are therefore many idiots in aikido who wouldn't know a real fight if they saw it. It is also true that not all aikidoka give a **** at all about fighting or effectiveness, again that is just the way it is for aikido.

You like the philosophical aspect which is fine. Just like in other arts some people get to the belief you can't have one with out the other. That is false. It isn't any more important to aikido than it is to Tai Chi. Again it has to do with the teacher. There are extremes on both sides.

Thank you we agree. See this is a thread about Aikido and not other MA. If it was Xingyi or Bagua I would be saying the same exact things.

You are also trying to find little tiny miniscule things to disagree with. Then you agree with me.

Just like with PH I think you are defending your art and missing my points. Your posts agrees with everything I said except the philosophical aspect.

Is that so wrong? Because I would rather have someone agree with me 95% then argue over a 5% disagreement.